Neck Braces - the future of road riding?

Go to any off-road event and 80% of the riders these days will be wearing neck braces. These items are possible life-savers, so why haven’t they been adopted by the road-riding fraternity?

Posted: 16 February 2009
by Mark Forsyth

To understand what the human neck has to undergo in terms of stresses and strains when you ride a bike you really need to know the weight of your head. The best way to weigh your head is to cut it off and pop it onto some accurate scales. This method is fraught with difficulties. So lets speak to a mortuary technician. “An adult human head cut off around vertebra C3, with no hair, weighs somewhere between 4.5 and 5 kg, constituting around 8% of the whole body mass,” says my local mortuary technician, in between mouthfuls of egg-cress sandwich.

Make that 7.0kg with a helmet and hair. That’s a good sized medicine ball perched on top of a few bits of floating bone supported by nothing more than muscle and ligaments. And while your skull and brain are neatly protected by a crash-helmet, and your upper body safe from harm with coverings of cow leather and armour, your neck is completely exposed to the elements. Should you have an impact with something hard and unyielding, what’s there to protect your neck?

The answer comes in the shape of the neck brace systems currently embraced by the motocross crowd. The brace sits on your shoulders, is loosely held in place by underarm straps, and an elongated section protects the upper spine. Remarkably simple in design and yet anatomically brilliant, these carbon-fibre collars prevent the lower edges of your helmet from moving beyond certain limits, ultimately stopping you breaking your neck should you have the wrong kind of accident. That’s the theory, anyway.

Know your C-spines

Your spine is made up of vertebrae, each one given a letter and a number. C1 (the bit that fixes your skull to your spine) to C7, the bottom vertebrae in your upper cervical spine, is a rubbish design for anything other than normal life. By normal life, we mean ‘not riding motorbikes.’ There’s a medical rhyme: “C one, two, three, four, five: keeps the diaphragm alive”. The diaphragm is the thing that assists in the filling and evacuation of your lungs. It keeps you breathing. Lose the use of that and you’re on life-support.

And it just so happens that C5 is the vertebrae roughly level with the collar on your one-piece race suit. The exposed part of neck between the bottom of you helmet and your suit collar keeps you alive. Notice the use of that word again, exposed. The problem with bike accidents are the wide variety of possible accident scenarios adding extra loadings in different planes to an already vulnerable area of spine. Not only does this make the motorcyclist’s C-spine more vulnerable but by the same token it makes it much harder to protect. Speak to any paramedic or firefighter and they’ll all tell you the same. First on scene at a motorcycle accident, you must suspect C-spine injury. If the victim is unconscious you take it as read that the C-spine, and the spine in general, is injured.

Car racing saw the adoption of the HANS (Head and Neck Support) system, originally designed by professor Bob Hubbard of Michigan State University for off-shore powerboat racers. Adapted and improved, the HANS system has been compulsory in F1 since 1996. Impressively, there has been no loss of life or paralysis in that sport since. So think what it could do for bikes and riders.

Meet Dr Leatt

The motorcycle neck brace has been pioneered by Dr Chris Leatt, a South African racer and doctor. “It started seven years ago,” says Leatt. “I was competing in an off road event and a guy crashed and broke his neck. We worked on him for ages administering CPU but it was no good. It was when they were carrying his body off the hill I thought ‘this is pointless, what a waste, there’s must be something we can do.’” The resulting research and development resulted in the Leatt Brace system. Put simply, the neck cup, worn around the shoulders with elongated sections front and back, creates new load paths for the head and helmet, diverting them away from the vulnerable C-spine. It’s use in motocross and off road riding is huge. So why the focus on off-road and not road-riding?

“As a new company we had to concentrate on the areas that needed the most help first. Motocross has far more instances of cervical spine damage due to the nature of the accidents, so we started there first. But my background is really road-racing, I just off-road to keep fit. We’ve got the top three in the South African Superbike series wearing the Leatt Brace but we have to take things gradually. There’s still more development to do, especially in conjunction with the clothing and helmets used.”

The legal hurdles

Alpinestars have just launched their own interpretation of the neck brace. Three years in development the motocross focused neck restraint is also designed to minimize the risks of C-spine injury. Dainese’s D-Air neck protection system is already widely publicized but still undergoing research and development. It’s also an obvious area of interest for helmet manufacturers as well but, interestingly, Dr Leatt’s tightly-worded patent for the Leatt Brace may prove to be a stumbling block for further development.

Arai Europe’s technical manager Willem Poelwyjk says, “we saw the Leatt system at the Autosport show and were very impressed. In motocross the rider tends to remain in the same position regardless of the type of machine they ride, while road riders could ride a sports bike one day then a cruiser style bike the next, both of which require very different protective clothing and body and neck positions. This creates obvious problems for not just safety but also legal responsibility.” Ah, legalities. Was wondering when that would crop up.

And this seems to be one reason we’re not all wearing neck-braces on the road. Leatt haven’t pushed their system for road-riders (even though it works fine), preferring instead to stick with the off-road market they know. Their patent means others can’t copy their design just for road-riders. Alpinestars have circumvented this and have their system but it isn’t out yet. Yet it’s only a matter of time until the marketing hits road-riders. You’d rightly look in horror if someone donned their leathers at a trackday without slipping in a back protector and sped off with their helmet unfastened. And we’re not that far away from feeling the same way about neck protection.



Previous article
Discuss: The 999 will be a future classic
Next article
Video: BMW K1300R Anti-Slip Control ASC


neck brace, road riding, off road, leatt, mx, alpinestars, protection, neck, spine, vertebra, motorcycle, crash
TwitterStumbleUponFacebookDiggRedditGoogle


Discuss this story

My best mate's sister’s best friend is wearing one now that was prescribed to her by a doctor because she received a proper good thumping from her boy friend who was pissed that she passed on a dose of an STD to his best mate with him getting it because she has been pissed at him and hasn’t serviced him for over an a month. Living in a council estate she claims  she got it from sharing a bus pass with the postman and the milkman, and his three brothers. 

Posted: 16/02/2009 at 12:57

Graeme Sutherland wrote (see)

The Leatt brace can be used for road riders. It's just a case of tweaking it a bit first.

The Web Bike World review contains a few more details:

http://www.webbikeworld.com/r4/leatt-brace/

BMW included their version in the photoshoot of the S1000RR...

http://www.white-photo.com/IMG_1424.jpg


Are they worth having?

The accident statistics that I've heard suggest that the chance of injuring a bodypart decreases as you move up the body. (The head is the exception to this rule.) So feet are really vulnerable, whereas the neck is rarely injured.

That said, the reports that I've heard suggest that they don't get in the way when riding, so I don't think that it'll hurt. I'm thinking about getting one.

This may be true, but the counter to that is that the risk of death or serious debilitating injury increases the higher up the body the injury occurrs.

Posted: 16/02/2009 at 13:46

Graeme Sutherland wrote (see)
The accident statistics that I've heard suggest that the chance of injuring a bodypart decreases as you move up the body. (The head is the exception to this rule.) So feet are really vulnerable, whereas the neck is rarely injured.

That said, the reports that I've heard suggest that they don't get in the way when riding, so I don't think that it'll hurt. I'm thinking about getting one.


Lower limb injuries are very common indeed. Having your lower limbs torn off is not uncommon in serious motorcycle incidents.  It is because your legs are easily crushed between one hard object (your bike) and whatever hard object you hit - typically the ground, another vehicle or a building.

I recall (but cannot find) an article that suggested scooter riders were suffering less of these debilitating injuries as their legs are not so easily trapped.  

Graeme Sutherland wrote (see)

That said, the reports that I've heard suggest that they don't get in the way when riding, so I don't think that it'll hurt. I'm thinking about getting one.


Why do you even think it is necessary? Have you damaged your neck often?

I suspect there is a MUCH greater risk that you will suffer from the effects of Risk Compensation - as you feel 'safer' (even though you are not) you are predisposed to take more risks and when you make a mistake you'll still hurt yourself.


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 14:20

"Go to any off-road event and 80% of the riders these days will be wearing neck braces. These items are possible life-savers, so why haven’t they been adopted by the road-riding fraternity?"

This is a fairly dull subject, and TBH I've tried to tart it up a bit but the "Goodie Two Shoes" fraternity isn't having any of it so I'll just cut to the chase.

Why don’t we all become cunts and wrap ourselves in the safety cocoon of a large sedan. Might just as well if we are going to wear neck braces and air bag jackets along with all the items we already wear.  Fook, going for a pleasure ride these days requires about twenty minutes to get kitted up and out the door with boots, gloves, armoured trousers, armoured jacket, ear plugs, baklava, helmet.


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 14:58

At the end of the day its up to the individual, Yes its a good idea but all depends on the movement you have got to be very flexible.

Posted: 16/02/2009 at 15:16

k7 dave wrote (see)
At the end of the day its up to the individual, Yes its a good idea but all depends on the movement you have got to be very flexible.

Why is it 'a good idea'?

Posted: 16/02/2009 at 16:06

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)
k7 dave wrote (see)
At the end of the day its up to the individual, Yes its a good idea but all depends on the movement you have got to be very flexible.

Why is it 'a good idea'?

i got a better idea, stick a tampon in it

Posted: 16/02/2009 at 17:40

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)
 

Why do you even think it is necessary? Have you damaged your neck often?

I suspect there is a MUCH greater risk that you will suffer from the effects of Risk Compensation - as you feel 'safer' (even though you are not) you are predisposed to take more risks and when you make a mistake you'll still hurt yourself.

Most people only get one chance to damage their neck.

I suspect that there is not MUCH greater risk that you will suffer the effects of Risk Compensation. 


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 17:41

iBurty wrote (see)
Most people only get one chance to damage their neck.

How does that work Doctor?  What do you mean? You can damage it once then never again? 

iBurty wrote (see)

I suspect that there is not MUCH greater risk that you will suffer the effects of Risk Compensation. 


Consider how people feel about (say) riding without gloves, wearing a t-shirt and trainers and an open-face helmet in the summer compared to wearing 'full leathers', boots, armoured gloves and a full face lid.

 Which rider do you think will be likely to be 'quicker'?   Push it into corners 'harder'?  brake later?  Go for the dodgy overtake?

 The point being - if you feel 'safer' you will tend to have a propensity to take more risk.  Choosing to add a pointless neck brace to the panoply of over-priced clothing for novice riders is no different. 

Of course the hard of thinking can't cope with this concept so will deny it exists, get kitted up and go and stuff themselves into a hedge - and find it still can hurt.


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 19:01

i wear one every time i get on my motocross bike and once you're riding you don't notice you're wearing it. you can fit stabilsing straps to hold the leatt in place,but i don't bother.

as yet i've not tried it at a track day,i've even made a slit in the race hump so it will take the leatt.

anything that helps keep you out of a wheelchair has got to be worth it.although i do think there are more neck injuries off road.

there has been talk that they have caused a few broken collarbones, but i know which bone i'd sooner break.

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh111/wavydave13/811749540-0_thumb.jpg


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 19:53

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)
iBurty wrote (see)
Most people only get one chance to damage their neck.

How does that work Doctor?  What do you mean? You can damage it once then never again? 

I'm pretty sure you know exactly what I mean.  But damage your neck and you stand a very good chance to have a permanent serious disability.  That is if you survive at all.

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

iBurty wrote (see)

I suspect that there is not MUCH greater risk that you will suffer the effects of Risk Compensation. 


Consider how people feel about (say) riding without gloves, wearing a t-shirt and trainers and an open-face helmet in the summer compared to wearing 'full leathers', boots, armoured gloves and a full face lid.

 Which rider do you think will be likely to be 'quicker'?   Push it into corners 'harder'?  brake later?  Go for the dodgy overtake?

 The point being - if you feel 'safer' you will tend to have a propensity to take more risk.  Choosing to add a pointless neck brace to the panoply of over-priced clothing for novice riders is no different. 

Of course the hard of thinking can't cope with this concept so will deny it exists, get kitted up and go and stuff themselves into a hedge - and find it still can hurt.

I know exactly what risk compensation is.  I just refute the suggestion that wearing a neck brace will mean a MUCH greater chance that you will experience it.  Bearing in mind that assuming you have gone to this length, then there is every possibility that you already wear protective gear.  I can't imagine many people wearing a neck brace that are still riding in shorts and a T shirt. 

Anyway this is just an argument for argument's sake.   No-one is suggesting that anyone is forced to wear any protection, not in this case anyway.  If people want this stuff available and it works and is safe, then why not let them have it?


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 20:30

iBurty wrote (see)
I know exactly what risk compensation is. 

Uh-huh.

iBurty wrote (see)

If people want this stuff available and it works and is safe, then why not let them have it?


 I think you've just proved that you don't. 


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 21:00

fomula 1 have been using them , leatt did`nt just think  this may be a good way to make money, he spent more time trying to put motorcycle riders,being one himself, back on there bikes after herific accidents, as a medical surgene , they are a really a good , after seeing a rider being de-capitated you may think twice.


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 22:13

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)
iBurty wrote (see)
I know exactly what risk compensation is. 

Uh-huh.

iBurty wrote (see)

If people want this stuff available and it works and is safe, then why not let them have it?


 I think you've just proved that you don't. 

I think you've proved you didn't read what I wrote.  Never mind. 

Posted: 16/02/2009 at 22:17

Graeme Sutherland wrote (see)

 I'm thinking about getting one.

I have to wonder aloud if you are so concerned that you will die or be maimed while riding a motorcycle....why would you bother?

Best to tailor your riding to suit your comfort and enjoyment level rather than run about parcelled up with gadgets and shitting yourself with worry.


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 22:22


Flo
Why so anti-, fellas?  No-one's forcing you to wear these things, they'll add to your protection in a crash and the kind of person that buys one of these things is probably quite risk averse anyway. I won't be wearing one, I'm comfortable with the kit I've already got, but I can see the attraction. I wouldn't be hacking open my leathers to fit one, but then I can't see me wearing anything with a built in hump either, wavy .

Posted: 16/02/2009 at 22:26

neesh wrote (see)

fomula 1 have been using them , leatt did`nt just think  this may be a good way to make money, he spent more time trying to put motorcycle riders,being one himself, back on there bikes after herific accidents, as a medical surgene , they are a really a good , after seeing a rider being de-capitated you may think twice.


I think I've deciphered that and if I've got it right then surely these would be best used if you're a member of the aristocracy in pre-Revolution France. It'd confuse the fcuk out of Robespierre.

Posted: 16/02/2009 at 22:29

neesh wrote (see)

 after seeing a rider being de-capitated you may think twice.


I'd think twice if I when I see some paranoid idiot out on the road with one of these things. 

I do wonder exactly how much of a problem you think riders being decapitated really is? 

It's nearly none at all and there is no evidence that this silly contraption would do anything to stop it either.


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 22:31

Flo wrote (see)
Why so anti-, fellas?  No-one's forcing you to wear these things

Perhaps inadvertently,but you made nail and head contact just there.

I'm all for choice,do whatever you want,I do. But what if we are witnessing the thin end of the wedge? Today there is a suggestion that neck braces may be a good thing,tomorrow legislation comes into force to make wearing compulsory.

End of choice.


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 22:32

Flo wrote (see)
Why so anti-, fellas?  No-one's forcing you to wear these things, they'll add to your protection in a crash and the kind of person that buys one of these things is probably quite risk averse anyway. I won't be wearing one, I'm comfortable with the kit I've already got, but I can see the attraction. I wouldn't be hacking open my leathers to fit one, but then I can't see me wearing anything with a built in hump either, wavy .

it's not the leathers that have got the hump,it's me.

Posted: 16/02/2009 at 22:41

Skub wrote (see)
Flo wrote (see)
Why so anti-, fellas?  No-one's forcing you to wear these things

Perhaps inadvertently,but you made nail and head contact just there.

I'm all for choice,do whatever you want,I do. But what if we are witnessing the thin end of the wedge? Today there is a suggestion that neck braces may be a good thing,tomorrow legislation comes into force to make wearing compulsory.

End of choice.

What brings you to that conclusion?

Despite the huge advances in protective cothing in the last 30+ years, nothing has been made compulsory since helmets were made that way in 1973.


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 22:52


Flo
+1 iBurty. The man can't even legislate visors sensibly, what chance has he got figuring out where these things fit in? Knowing HMG they'd hear about the slightly increased risk of a broken shoulder and ban the lot...

Posted: 16/02/2009 at 22:59

iBurty wrote (see)

What brings you to that conclusion?

Despite the huge advances in protective cothing in the last 30+ years, nothing has been made compulsory since helmets were made that way in 1973.

Looks like the EU have mandated DRL for all vehicles despite the disaster they had in Austria when they pre-empted the ruling. 

Bikes have been the subject of perminant DRL for 5 (or so) years now. Seen a big drop in incidents because of it? 

Me neither.


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 23:00

iBurty wrote (see)

What brings you to that conclusion?

Despite the huge advances in protective cothing in the last 30+ years, nothing has been made compulsory since helmets were made that way in 1973.

It's the blind acceptance from within the ranks(so to speak)that irks me the most. The rabid,frothing MCN letters page type statements that demand legislation on clothing and protective gear and believe riders should be penalised for wearing non approved clothing.

It's about as far removed from why I ride bikes as you can possibly get,they have forgotten,if they ever knew,what it means to enjoy riding a motorcycle. 

So when you find pretty broad acceptance of safety gear among current riders,it doesn't take a giant leap to visualise the step to legal compulsion. 


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 23:03

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)


I'd think twice if I when I see some paranoid idiot out on the road with one of these things. 

I do wonder exactly how much of a problem you think riders being decapitated really is? 

It's nearly none at all and there is no evidence that this silly contraption would do anything to stop it either.

the leatt neckbrace is to stop injuries from hyper tension and hyper extension of the neck. it has nothing to do with a rider being decapitated.

it's a device that will hopefully stop you doing your chief ironside impersonation.


it's your own crash helmet that can put you in a wheelchair. next time you have your helmet on ,tilt your head back as far as it will go and feel where the helmet touchs your spine.now tilt your head back at 50mph and see what happens.

the leatt brace stops this.


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 23:19

Skub wrote (see)
I have to wonder aloud if you are so concerned that you will die or be maimed while riding a motorcycle....why would you bother?

Best to tailor your riding to suit your comfort and enjoyment level rather than run about parcelled up with gadgets and shitting yourself with worry.

If the protective gadgets aren't an impedence and don't cause discomfort then I don't see them as being a bad thing. I suppose that it's down to risk management, and accidents are typically unforeseen.

That said, someone posted on another Leatt thread that necks are seriously injured in something like 1 in 1000 accidents. So the odds are in your favour.

As for risk compensation, I heard that one of the magazines did a test, and found that in reality people don't ride slower or more cautiously when they wear less gear than normal...


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 23:31

I was unfortunate enough to witness a motorcyclist slide into a car head on last year, an accident which cost him his life. 

I do not know if his injury was a broken neck, but what i can tell you is that he never even flinched after the impact to his head / neck area, which is why i suspect this as his cause of death.

My own opinion is as with other rider safety aids, they are there for you to use if you can afford / be bothered

My personal minimum is Helmet, gloves, jacket & boots with jeans etc. 

I cannot wear a back protector riding on the roads it drives me to distraction, but can however wear it on track days, strange i know but true. I would try one to see if i could get on with it, and would deffinatley try it on a track day


Posted: 16/02/2009 at 23:43

wavydave13 wrote (see)

the leatt neckbrace is to stop injuries from hyper tension and hyper extension of the neck. it has nothing to do with a rider being decapitated.

it's a device that will hopefully stop you doing your chief ironside impersonation.


I know that and you know that. 

But it is clear already that misinformation and misunderstanding  about what this particular 'safety' device will achieve is already out there.


wavydave13 wrote (see)
it's your own crash helmet that can put you in a wheelchair. next time you have your helmet on ,tilt your head back as far as it will go and feel where the helmet touchs your spine.now tilt your head back at 50mph and see what happens.

the leatt brace stops this.


I have a light and (compared to the overly heavy modern full-face lids) 15 year old open face that is very unlikely to do that.  It does particularly not stop me moving my head anywhere.

I also have a headrest that should reduce the whiplash if I get rear ended - that and the progressively deformable rear structure anyway.


Posted: 17/02/2009 at 07:52

Graeme Sutherland wrote (see)
That said, someone posted on another Leatt thread that necks are seriously injured in something like 1 in 1000 accidents. So the odds are in your favour.


I've had 3 incidents in 30 years riding and none for the past 25 years.  I think I'll have to live a very long time to have 1000 collisions.

Graeme Sutherland wrote (see)

As for risk compensation, I heard that one of the magazines did a test, and found that in reality people don't ride slower or more cautiously when they wear less gear than normal...


I'd be interested to see that particular piece of work.  I suspect it is the usual advert filler/mindless trash that (most) of the childish and moronic motorcycle writers seem to foist on the ignorant these days.  I suggest you do your own research into the subject.  I'll save you the problem of Googling John Adams blog and Gerald Wilde's book Target Risk for a start.

Posted: 17/02/2009 at 08:04

Skub wrote (see)
iBurty wrote (see)

What brings you to that conclusion?

Despite the huge advances in protective cothing in the last 30+ years, nothing has been made compulsory since helmets were made that way in 1973.

It's the blind acceptance from within the ranks(so to speak)that irks me the most. The rabid,frothing MCN letters page type statements that demand legislation on clothing and protective gear and believe riders should be penalised for wearing non approved clothing.

It's about as far removed from why I ride bikes as you can possibly get,they have forgotten,if they ever knew,what it means to enjoy riding a motorcycle. 

So when you find pretty broad acceptance of safety gear among current riders,it doesn't take a giant leap to visualise the step to legal compulsion. 

I take your point, the occasional letters in MCN calling for compulsory gear get me worked up too.  But there is a huge jump from a number of people suggesting such things, and legislation.


Posted: 17/02/2009 at 10:14

FatBoyTim wrote (see)

I was unfortunate enough to witness a motorcyclist slide into a car head on last year, an accident which cost him his life. 

I do not know if his injury was a broken neck, but what i can tell you is that he never even flinched after the impact to his head / neck area, which is why i suspect this as his cause of death.

My own opinion is as with other rider safety aids, they are there for you to use if you can afford / be bothered

My personal minimum is Helmet, gloves, jacket & boots with jeans etc. 

I cannot wear a back protector riding on the roads it drives me to distraction, but can however wear it on track days, strange i know but true. I would try one to see if i could get on with it, and would deffinatley try it on a track day

My best mate was out on his bike in 2003. He was wearing top line full leathers Arai Corsair lid,A/star boots and gloves. He hit a cow and died by the side of the road.

I've fallen off my bike countless times in the past,wearing jeans/trainers and walked away.

You cannot assume with any confidence that you will not be hurt wearing full protective kit any more that you can reliably say you'll die if you wear jeans.

I have no issue with anyone wishing to use whatever kit is available,but I do think it foolish to imagine any of it will make you safe. Not having accidents or near misses is preferable to wrapping up and hoping you crash well.


Posted: 17/02/2009 at 11:47

I think its a good idea despite all the negatives. As time is going by more and more advances are being made in motorcycle safety gear and thats surely a positive thing.

As long as its left up to the individual to decide how "protected" they want to dress up as its unfair to make things compulsory as not everyone has a lot of money to spend.

But at the end of the day its like what Skub said - it doesnt matter how safety conscious you dress up or not there is still no telling what will happen in an accident - it all depends on the circumstances and if you hit anything. You would hope the more safety gear you have on the more chance you have of surviving but its not always the case.

This neck brace does look fiddly however and uncomfortable slightly. I hate wearing a scarf as it restricts my head/helmet movement let alone a brace! But I do think its a step in the right direction.


Posted: 17/02/2009 at 12:04

Hi Lads,

Intresting reading, I have permant damage to c3,c4 and c5, i will not tell you how I did this but not M/c related.

I would wear one due to the damage I have, If I did not have the damage I would wear one!

Whilst you can survive damage to c1-c5 and not die the on going problems can be first the obvious pain the less obvious is get a trapped nerve for a while depending what nerve depends what happens sometimes my small finger on my left hand goes completely numb an minor inconvience yes but there are more unpleasent ones.

It was once pointed out that people on holiday were getting sunstroke but they were not lying out in the sun just walking around and wearing sun screen. The important part was that they never applied enought protection to back of the neck.

This is the area where all you nerves come together to enter the skull so you can imagine the importance of this area.

Whilst I write this we all have to wear a helmet to protect the old grey matter wither we like it or not but say you unfortunatly had a crash and your helmet saved the grey matter but you destroyed your neck. You would be mentally fine but possiblitly paralised from the neck down. I suppose this this hard to imagine so then think you cant wipe your Arse, you have a boner but dont know whoooo!

Everybody has the right (at the moment) to choose and I respect that.

sorry to rattle on but safe riding however you do it

cheers 


Posted: 17/02/2009 at 18:15

http://www.motoselect.com/shop/images/products/alpfwsmx4wp.jpg


http://www.grandprixlegends.com/Images/Products/Large_Images/HMT859_1.jpg


http://www.motoselect.com/shop/images/products/spdefenderbc.jpg


I wear a Schuberth S1Pro helmet, armoured 2 part leathers, armoured gloves, boots etc and a Spidi back and chest protector. I really enjoy wearing it and the Spidi armour is level 2 safety(highest level) but only 700 grams and quite thin/flexible. I feel very safe compared to alot of other bikers I see but I only wear the stuff I wear because it's MY choice and NOT COMPULSORY AT ALL. If it were compulsory I would resist it with much vigour!


Posted: 17/02/2009 at 22:37

lol, apart from the helmet which has always been compulsory for me in my time, so to speak..

Posted: 17/02/2009 at 22:49

Neck brace looks ok if thats your thing I would not not like it myself as I need to be able to do easy 'lifesavers'. The brace would affect my ability to look all around me and I cant have that.

Posted: 17/02/2009 at 22:51

TenaciousD wrote (see)

 I feel very safe compared to alot of other bikers I see but I only wear the stuff I wear because it's MY choice

You wear the stuff because you have 'choice' or because you 'feel very safe'?


Posted: 18/02/2009 at 07:00

Well I wear an armoured jacket with a back protector and armoured trousers.

Took the hip pads out of trousers because they were too much hassle and I often ride to work in kevlar jeans and then just dont bother on the way home (I have to get changed for the office )

I notice no difference in my riding style coming home. Saying all that I DO think these are a good idea for certain riders, track riders in the main.

No way I would want to have any difficulties turning my head thanks to the idiot drivers round my way who all seem determined to knock me off!

Posted: 18/02/2009 at 07:55

Tom2510 wrote (see)
Took the hip pads out of trousers because they were too much hassle and I often ride to work in kevlar jeans and then just dont bother on the way home.  I notice no difference in my riding style coming home.


You wouldn't as you have not made a decision that they are somehow 'necessary'.

Try riding in an open-face lid, jeans, t-shirt with no gloves and some flimsy trainers and see how that affects your 'riding style coming home'.....


Posted: 18/02/2009 at 08:03

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)
TenaciousD wrote (see)

 I feel very safe compared to alot of other bikers I see but I only wear the stuff I wear because it's MY choice

You wear the stuff because you have 'choice' or because you 'feel very safe'?

I wear safety gear because I have choice. I wear this particular safety gear because it's top quality and it makes me feel very safe. What I object to is someone else telling me if and how I should protect MYSELF when it's none of their damned business! (apart from the point that the government is probably in bed with saftey equipment manufacturers. .. corporatism is rife in UK Plc..."right, lets see what else we can force them to buy" etc...)

Posted: 18/02/2009 at 09:16

See more comments...
Talkback: Neck Braces - the future of road riding?


Busiest motorcycle review conversations

Competitions